![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Friday, 4 February 2011 05:43 pm
(no subject)
Back in 2007, I complained that a news source referred to "the late Steve McQueen" when he'd died in 1980. Today I read of "the late Jacques Tati," who died in 1982. That's an even longer grace period.
Personally, I think that for "late" to have much impact, the death has to be recent enough that some people still have trouble coping with it. Of course, that varies a lot by who dies and who mourns. Would you speak of "the late Heath Ledger" now that it's been three years? How about Ronald Reagan, who would've turned 100 this Sunday but died in 2004?
Nevertheless, the least that journalists could do is not insinuate that a college graduate was born lately.
Personally, I think that for "late" to have much impact, the death has to be recent enough that some people still have trouble coping with it. Of course, that varies a lot by who dies and who mourns. Would you speak of "the late Heath Ledger" now that it's been three years? How about Ronald Reagan, who would've turned 100 this Sunday but died in 2004?
Nevertheless, the least that journalists could do is not insinuate that a college graduate was born lately.